Sounds like the protestors forcefully entered the meeting area. It only takes a few to ruin a protest.

Click to expand...

While I do agree with that, I feel like the pepper spraying at least jumped a few steps. Why couldn't the campus police just drag those people out of the room? Handcuff them (real or ziptie)? I feel like pepper spray has become the go to tool for when someone is faced with a sticky situation they don't know how to handle.

I really can't see how a line of a few officers shoving scrawny kids out of the room isn't any less efficient and better.

I also just love the picture. "Oooh, let me get this on my iPhone!" A phone that costs almost as much as one unsubsidized class or the phone plan associated with it compared to a cheaper alternative costing another unsubsidized class.

I also just love the picture. "Oooh, let me get this on my iPhone!" A phone that costs almost as much as one unsubsidized class or the phone plan associated with it compared to a cheaper alternative costing another unsubsidized class.

Why couldn't the campus police just drag those people out of the room? Handcuff them (real or ziptie)? I feel like pepper spray has become the go to tool for when someone is faced with a sticky situation they don't know how to handle.

Click to expand...

The article says there were over 100 people, and they stormed the meeting room. How many police would it have taken to "just drag those people out of the room"?

Santa Monica College officials in California have launched an investigation into a raucous student protest at a board of trustees meeting in which campus police used pepper spray on demonstrators, sending three of them to a hospital, the college president said Wednesday.

The students weren't allowed into the overflowing meeting room Tuesday evening and were demonstrating in a hallway against a summer pilot program creating two tiers of tuition when the pepper spraying incident occurred, said Paul Alvarez Jr., the multimedia editor for the campus newspaper who videotaped the incident.

Three people were taken to a hospital, and about 30 other students needed treatment for pepper spray, said Santa Monica Fire Department Capt. Judah Mitchell. The fire department set up a decontamination unit that consisted of a fire hose with clear water, Mitchell said. Santa Monica is a coastal city adjacent to Los Angeles.

A number of the protesters "engaged in unlawful conduct," such as setting off fire alarms, but campus police "exercised restraint and made no arrests," college President Chui Tsang said in a statement.

He said the protesters in the corridor chose not to enter an overflow room. In all, about 100 people protested the board meeting, he said.

"When some of these demonstrators used force to enter the board room proper, and had overrun the door and the personnel stationed at the door, there was one discharge of pepper spray used by a SMC police officer to preserve public and personal safety. Unfortunately, a number of bystanders, including college staff, students and other police personnel were affected," Tsang said.

"Santa Monica College regrets that a group of people chose to disrupt a public meeting in an unlawful manner," he added.

Id say this is more of a black mark on the college because its supposed to be an institution of higher learning and yet the students attending don't even know how to hold a lawful protest. The school would be good to expel anyone who was found to be actively entering the meeting area unlawfully, maybe their parents can teach them some manners when they are back home working at mcdonalds.

I'm suggesting that your statement of "a hundred unruly protesters to storm[ing] an organized meeting." is an overstatement of what actually occurred.

Click to expand...

Beat me to it. Only said some, which based on those that went to the hospital (just a few) sounds like perhaps a handful actually got in and were being disruptive. A few officers could've really handled that better. If it actually was 100 students mad rushing the trustees in a frenzy, then spray away.

Beat me to it. Only said some, which based on those that went to the hospital (just a few) sounds like perhaps a handful actually got in and were being disruptive. A few officers could've really handled that better. If it actually was 100 students mad rushing the trustees in a frenzy, then spray away.

Click to expand...

Okay, so how many people need to behave this way before pepper spray becomes an option? Does it really need to be all 100? How about 99?

As fat as I'm concerned, even if it was one person, you have no idea what that person's intent is when they force their way past security. That person could be armed for all you know. I'd someone needs to be stopped to maintain order, you stop them.

In any event, it sounds like the number of people who needed to be controlled was at least more than the police were able to control by simply asking them to play nicely. I have no problem with their using the pepper spray under the circumstances.

People need to learn if they overstep the boundaries (and break the local law) they need to face the consequences - even if it's full of pepper spray.

Click to expand...

"In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in anothers shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

"In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in anothers shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

So you're suggesting that since limiting the number of people in a room is a dumb rule, it's our obligation to defy it?

Click to expand...

I'm struggling to link these two also, it can't be about the tuition itself as they are not legally bound to pay unless they want to attend college. Surely the poster isn't suggesting people should be able to break into public spaces whenever they choose, and no laws were being created here that bound these students so obstructing the meeting doesn't seem to meet these standards.

So you're suggesting that since limiting the number of people in a room is a dumb rule, it's our obligation to defy it?

Click to expand...

It's not about it being dumb. Let me give you a real life example.

In Québec there is currently a massive student strike. In one particular school, one person has gone to court in order to declare the strike illegal and won since there had been some minor procedure irregularities in the referendum (but still, student support was 70%). Students then decided to block the school's hallways with chairs and desks. Sure it was breaking the rules, but the action was moral (the court order, when you evaluate it from a rational point of view, isn't acceptable).

In Québec there is currently a massive student strike. In one particular school, one person has gone to court in order to declare the strike illegal and won since there had been some minor procedure irregularities in the referendum (but still, student support was 70%). Students then decided to block the school's hallways with chairs and desks. Sure it was breaking the rules, but the action was moral (the court order, when you evaluate it from a rational point of view, isn't acceptable).

Click to expand...

I don't think I'm too off-topic when I ask this: I'm curious, in the "rational point of view" world to which you subscribe," what role, if any, is there for purely procedural rules? I don't ask in a snarky or rhetorical way. Just interested, because your paragraph suggests that punishment (for lack of a better word) for violation of a procedural rule/law deems all manner of future action by the violator(s) to be "moral."

I don't think I'm too off-topic when I ask this: I'm curious, in the "rational point of view" world to which you subscribe," what role, if any, is there for purely procedural rules? I don't ask in a snarky or rhetorical way. Just interested, because your paragraph suggests that punishment (for lack of a better word) for violation of a procedural rule/law deems all manner of future action by the violator(s) to be "moral."

In Québec there is currently a massive student strike. In one particular school, one person has gone to court in order to declare the strike illegal and won since there had been some minor procedure irregularities in the referendum (but still, student support was 70%). Students then decided to block the school's hallways with chairs and desks. Sure it was breaking the rules, but the action was moral (the court order, when you evaluate it from a rational point of view, isn't acceptable).

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Are you advocating that it's okay (indeed, more "advanced" thinking) to break the law, in this case causing trouble and endangering people's lives by blocking off exits, because you feel like the law being broken has less of a moral standing?

Okay, so how many people need to behave this way before pepper spray becomes an option? Does it really need to be all 100? How about 99?

Click to expand...

It's an admittedly tough call. However, when you're in an enclosed space (indoors) it seems to me that you're putting other people and the event itself at risk by using it.

I would be curious to find out if the meeting was adjourned after the spray was discharged. I imagine that just the smell of it would be enough to bother people, especially those with breathing problems or other sensitivities.

It would seem to me that the first thing to reach for is your walkie-talkie to call in reinforcements, preferably before the crowd gets out of hand. Using pepper spray jeopardizes the very event you're trying to protect, it leads to bad publicity and PR, and it probably will lead to litigation. It should be used judiciously.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.